Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Fix an index (small) category $I$. Let's say our category $\mathcal{C}$ has limits of type $I$. In this case, $\varprojlim_I:\mathcal{C}^I \to \mathcal{C}$ is a functor.

Let's say our category $\mathcal{C}$ also has limits of type $J$. In this case, $\varprojlim_J: \mathcal{C}^J\to \mathcal{C}$ is also functor.

How do these relate?

Let me clarify. Suppose now our category $\mathcal{C}$ is complete, i.e. has all (small) limits. Can we somehow define a functor $\varprojlim$ which takes any diagram of any type and outputs its limit?

Motivation: let $R$ be a ring (commutative for simplification). It's easy to formalize the statement that the isomorphism $A\otimes_R \bigoplus_{i\in I} B_i \simeq \bigoplus_{i\in I} (A\otimes_R B_i)$ of $R$-modules is "natural in $A$".

But can it be also natural in $\{B_i\}_{i\in I}$? Yes:

This isomorphism is a particular case of the more general statement $A\otimes_R \varinjlim_I F\simeq \varinjlim_I A\otimes_R F$, where $F:I\to R-\mathrm{Mod}$ is a functor. This isomorphism is natural also in the second variable, meaning that there is a natural isomorphism between two appropiate functors.

But what if we also let $I$ vary?

Going back to the particular case of the direct sum, there is this proposition (taken out of Rotman, Introduction to Homological Algebra, page 87):

enter image description here

Now, this "naturality" involves also varying the index set $I$. How can this "naturality" really be expressed as a natural isomorphism between functors? Can it be generalized for arbitrary colimits?

share|improve this question
    
$\mathcal C^I=\text{Func}(I,\mathcal C)$, so for any $\phi\colon I\to J$ you get a functor $\Phi\colon \mathcal C^J \to \mathcal C^I\colon F\mapsto F\circ\phi$... maybe you're looking for some condition to have $$ \varinjlim_J F = \varinjlim_I( F\circ\phi) $$ –  tetrapharmakon Jan 31 '12 at 15:47
    
To answer your very first question: yes, easily modulo set theoretic problems. One can define the category of "all small diagrams" in a very straightforward way. But $\varprojlim$ is not canonically a functor – even when you fix the diagram shape – in the sense that a sufficiently large axiom of choice is required to define it. To be totally canonical one has to instead look at anafunctors. –  Zhen Lin Jan 31 '12 at 17:06
    
@Zhen, but in very concrete situations, it can be made into a functor without even knowing what «sufficiently large axiom of choice» even means: it is enough to be able to construct the limits in a concrete way, as in $\mathbf{Set}$, for example. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 6 '12 at 17:57
    
@Mariano: Indeed. But the hypothesis is usually of the form "the category $\mathcal{C}$ has limits of shape $J$", in which case a functorial choice of limits is not part of the hypothesis. –  Zhen Lin Feb 6 '12 at 18:14
    
I think I found what I was looking for, but I'm not really up to checking it: exercise 5 in page 111 of MacLane's CWM is called "limit as a functor on the comma category of all diagrams in $\mathcal{C}$", and I think it resolves the issue. If I ever bother in checking the details I'll post this as an answer. If someone is willing to do it, be my guest :) –  lentic catachresis Jun 7 '12 at 23:00

2 Answers 2

Maybe what you're looking for is the following: a functor $\phi : I \longrightarrow J$ is called final if, for every object $j\in J$, the comma category $(j\downarrow \phi)$ is non-empty and connected. That means that, for every object $j$, there is an object $i\in I$ and an arrow $j \longrightarrow \phi i$ and two any such arrows can be connected with a finite commutative diagram of the form

$$ \begin{matrix} j & = & j & = & j & \dots & j & = & j \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & \dots & \downarrow & & \downarrow \\ \phi i & \leftarrow & \cdot & \rightarrow & \cdot & \dots & \cdot & \rightarrow & \phi i' \end{matrix} $$

Let $F : J \longrightarrow \mathcal{C}$ be any functor and $\mu : F \longrightarrow \mathrm{colim}_j Fj$ and $\mu' : I \longrightarrow \mathrm{colim}_i F\phi i$ be the colimiting cones. You always have a canonical morphism

$$ h : \mathrm{colim}_i F\phi i \longrightarrow \mathrm{colim}_j Fj $$

such that $h_i\mu'_i = \mu_{\phi i}$ for every $i \in I$.

Now, assume that $\phi$ is final and that $\mathrm{colim}_i F\phi i$ exists. Then $\mathrm{colim}_jFj$ also exists and $h$ is an isomorphism.

Dualising, you get cofinal (initial) functors and an analogous result for limits. You can find all this stuff in Mac Lane's "Categories for the working mathematician".

share|improve this answer

There is a notion of Kan extension generalizing the notion of (co)limit.

Namely, suppose the category $C$ has enough limits. Then for any functor $\phi\colon I\to J$ there is a functor $\operatorname{Ran}_\phi\colon C^I\to C^J$ (defined by a kind of "fiberwise limit" construction, if you will). And for $\phi\colon I\to pt$, $\operatorname{Ran}_\phi$ is just $\lim_I$.

Finally, Lan is functorial in the obvious sense (because $\operatorname{Ran}_\phi$ is the adjoint functor to $\phi^*$). In particular, $\lim_I=\lim_J\circ\operatorname{Ran}_\phi$.

Tagline: functorial limit = Kan extension.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.